Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process

[Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net>]

On 06/08/07 at 11:52 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >     2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
> > >        post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
> >
> > Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
> > of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
> > nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
> > duck period).
> 
> I agree.  No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
> 
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
>     2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
>        becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
> ==== AMENDMENT PROPOSAL ====
> 
> and I ask for seconds.

I'm not sure if the formulation proposed by your amendment is totally
clear. It would be better to clarify who is the DPL during the 3 buffer
weeks at the end of the election process (between the end of the votes
and the end of the election).

I see a conflict between:
  2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
     becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
and:
  8.  The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.

Could you please clarify when the new elected DD effectively becomes the
DPL ?

Lucas